It was a unanimous ruling, and 2/3 Justices were Republicans nominated by Bush Sr. or Reagan.

The ruling is only with regards to states that have legalized *** marriage, and says nothing about whether or not it is unconstitutional to ban *** marriage, but says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.

The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for *** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.

The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for *** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the "win" here is that federal benefits should become available to *** / ******* couples in states where such marriages are permitted.

Yes, that's correct. However, given the recent trend of successful ballot initiatives which codify the traditional definition of marriage into state constitutions, one cannot help but wonder whether or not this will end up working against the *** marriage effort.

I can't see how it'll hurt but maybe you're a more creative thinker than I.

It's not a universal win but it'll definitely be a quality of life improvement for same *** couples who will (assuming this plays through to the end in their favor) be able to share federal pensions, veterans benefits, social security, etc. Hard to see that as a loss even as the slow crawl towards SSM rights moves along.

Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for *** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.

I think it will. I showed the aggregate polling over the last 10-15 years in a previous thread and we've just hit parity for support versus opposition whereas you don't have to go far back to find 10 or 20 point spreads against it. It will take time for state legislatures to roll over enough to overturn laws or re-amend their constitutions and some states will of course hold out much longer than others (such as the N. Carolina vote). But the trend certainly seems to be in favor of SSM and I think eventually you'll even have GOP controlled legislatures allowing it.

One thing I didn't expect is that you're seeing a lot more acceptance of SSM since Obama came out openly in favor of it. Assuming these new numbers are legitimate, that can have a real impact going forward as African-Americans were one of the bastions of support anti-SSM advocates depended on (again, see N. Carolina and California).

I would wager that a lot of people who vote Republican don't personally have an issue with SSM, and would answer either in favor of or not opposed to SSM when asked for a poll. The people they elect aren't going to pass any proposals putting an SSM initiative on the ballot, though.

That's because the people they elect go through a primary process that favors those who are against SSM because most Republicans (at least Republican primary voters) DO care. The fewer who care, the less often it'll matter in the primary process and the more people favorably inclined will take office.

The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage. I would argue that the vocal minority that is strongly in favor of SSM is experiencing the same thing. (In other words, the number of people who are basically apathetic about it is growing) However, the Republicans looking to win primaries are going to have to come out against SSM if they want the vocal minority against SSM to vote for them. Otherwise the vocal minority against SSM will just find another candidate with the same fiscal views but who is against SSM and prop him up to win.

Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.

You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.

Pfft, the civil servant who helped you was probably a man, thought Flea was hot, and decided he definitely wanted some of her female offspring populating the state aproximately 20 years later. You have 2 boys, though, don't you? So I guess the joke's on him!

You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.

We had to do pre-marriage counseling with the preacher who married us, so that took the cost down from $95 to $35.

We thought about doing that, but obviously decided to skip it. We're not big on counseling

Well, the guy we wanted to marry us insisted, he makes all couples he marries do it. It's not counseling, really. Not a "tell me your problems" type thing. More like marriage training, where he gave us a workbook to help us learn to communicate, make a budget, that type of thing. It was honestly sort of a joke, but it saved us $60 so we were happy.

Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.

Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.

Perhaps you need counselling.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.

Sure you're still young. Wait a few years. I'd get the whole thing. With a bit of prep you should be able to preserve it for later use. Use a vacuum packer before freezing.

Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

I think you're both overestimating the degree to which this is really about the "strident anti-SSM" vote in the first place. Every time the actual public has voted on granting the same legal status of marriage to same *** couples, they have rejected the idea, usually with a decent majority. Unless you truly believe that over 50% of the public is in the "strident anti-SSM" group, then you really ought to re-evaluate what is going on. The issue just isn't as simple as people "living in terror of teh gheyz" and it does the issue a disservice to continue to paint it that way.

It shouldn't even be up for a vote. Aside from gbaji's argument about the cost of marriage benefits, SSM doesn't affect anyone who doesn't get a same *** marriage. It affects others the same as interracial marriage, which is another civil rights issue that had to go before the supreme court to be legalized because the country as a whole was too bigoted to accept that people should be able to marry who they want.

I forget who said it, but someone smart once said that civil rights should never be put up to a vote, because the majority will never rule in favor of the minority. I think that's very accurate.

Every time the actual public has voted on granting the same legal status of marriage to same *** couples, they have rejected the idea, usually with a decent majority.

Except in the eight states where they didn't...

Vote? Yes. That was sorta my point. Amazing what you can accomplish when you don't let people vote on things.

Quote:

... the capital of the country...

The people voted in that case? You're still proving my point.

Quote:

...and your home state where they didn't before they did.

In my state the people voted against granting that legal status to *** couples. Then a judge overruled them. Then the people voted a second time to amend the state constitution. In both votes the majority of the population (of California, not exactly a bastion of intolerance) voted against granting the legal status of marriage and the attendant benefits to same *** couples. At some point, you really do have to abandon the assumption that this issue is just about people who like gays fighting against those who don't. That's just a stupid/silly way of looking at this.

Quote:

But yes, other than the exceptions your statement is true.

What exceptions? Can you name a single state in the US where the actual people voted to extend the legal status of marriage to same *** couples? Not the legislature, not the courts. A vote of the people. Last time I checked, every single time this has come to a vote of the people, the people have opposed it.

Why does this matter? Because someone up the thread made it sound like the majority wants these legal changes, and it's just some bigoted minority using money and influence to prevent what everyone wants. But that's simply not true. While there are a small number of bigoted people who just don't like gays, they are *not* the reason why things like Prop 8 in California exist. They are *not* the reason why DOMA exists. And if you only focus on that group, you are missing like 90% of the actual issue.

Again, does anyone actually think that over 50% of the voters in California just hate *** people? Really? That's pretty darn absurd. So then why do some people keep arguing this as though it's true?